NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Hanosh |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
565 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Hunting and Fishing Licenses for Veterans |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Maloy |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
35.0 |
Recurring |
Game
Protection Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUE
Estimated Revenue |
Subsequent Years Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
($1,676.0) |
See
Narrative |
Recurring |
Game
Protection Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
Responses
Received From
Game
and Fish Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House
Bill 565 amends current language to expand the eligibility for a free general
hunting and fishing license (to cover deer hunting, small game hunting and
fishing). Currently, the statute
provides this free license to any resident who is one hundred percent
disabled as a result of having] served in the armed forces of the
Significant Issues
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
HB 565 will result in an estimated $1,676.0 recurring revenue loss to the Game Protection Fund.
· The game and fish department estimates HB 565 will decrease license revenue so as to change 31,500 buyers of general hunting and fishing buyers into recipients of free licenses. This would be a decrease in revenue by $1,181.0 (31,500 X $37.50).
· HB 565 will also impact the department’s ability to qualify for federal funds through the Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration program. Annual federal apportionment is based upon the number of hunting and fishing license buyers (paid licenses only) and the state's landmass. The federal government calculates this apportionment annually, based on data from all 50 states. Therefore, it is difficult to pin-point an exact amount by which this apportionment will be reduces. However, a conservative estimate would be a five- percent reduction. Thus, based on an annual average of $7.5 million from the Sportfish and Wildlife Restoration program, this reduction would be $375.0.
· The department has also created exemptions to habitat improvement stamps for recipients of free licenses (disabled veterans and free fishing for over 70 years old). Expanding the pool of free licenses by 31,500 would also reduce revenue to the habitat improvement program by approximately $120, assuming that 75% of the license buyers would also buy the habitat stamp required to hunt or fish on BLM or Forest Service land holdings.
· This revenue decrease will hasten the need for the next fee increase for all other license buyers, and will up the amount of the increase. Current projections indicate that the next fee increase would need to take effect in fiscal year 2006. The revenue impact of this bill would move that date forward to fiscal year 2004, assuming no other negative impacts due to other legislation or other conditions (special appropriations, drought, forest closures, etc.).
· The decrease will also limit the department's ability to maintain or expand services to the public.
· Finally, there would also be a fiscal implication related to the administrative effort required to administer this expanded program (one FTE, $25,000 per year). While not as large an impact, even things such as postage should be considered. The department currently allows applicants for the disabled veteran licenses to obtain their license through the mail. If half of the estimated free license applicants chose this option, postage expenses would increase by $5-10 thousand per year.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The proposed veteran’s
exemption may not be popular with the remaining license-purchasing population,
as it is this population that will be absorbing the costs of the exemption.
ALTERNATIVES
An alternative would
be to create an appropriation to replace the revenue not collected for the free
licenses. This would also likely allow
SJM/njw